From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lee@firstfloor.org, Schermerh@firstfloor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] forked kernel task and mm structures imbalanced on NUMA
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:59:43 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100601155943.GA9453@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wruiycsl.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:48:10PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> writes:
>
> > This isn't really a new problem, and I don't know how important it is,
> > but I recently came across it again when doing some aim7 testing with
> > huge numbers of tasks.
>
> Seems reasonable. Of course you need to at least
> save/restore the old CPU policy, and use a subset of it.
The mpolicy? My patch does that (mpol_prefer_cpu_start/end). The real
problem is that it can actually violate the parent's mempolicy. For
example MPOL_BIND and cpus_allowed set on a node outside the mempolicy.
What is needed is to execute with the existing mempolicy, but from
the point of view of the destination CPU. A bit more work on the
mpol code is required, but this is good enough for basic tests.
> Another approach would be to migrate this on touch, but that is probably
> slightly more difficult. The advantage would be that on multiple
> migrations it would follow. And it would be a bit slower for
> the initial case.
Migrate what on touch? Talking mainly about kernel memory structures,
task_struct, mm, vmas, page tables, kernel stack, etc.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lee@firstfloor.org, Schermerh@firstfloor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] forked kernel task and mm structures imbalanced on NUMA
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 01:59:43 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100601155943.GA9453@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wruiycsl.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 05:48:10PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> writes:
>
> > This isn't really a new problem, and I don't know how important it is,
> > but I recently came across it again when doing some aim7 testing with
> > huge numbers of tasks.
>
> Seems reasonable. Of course you need to at least
> save/restore the old CPU policy, and use a subset of it.
The mpolicy? My patch does that (mpol_prefer_cpu_start/end). The real
problem is that it can actually violate the parent's mempolicy. For
example MPOL_BIND and cpus_allowed set on a node outside the mempolicy.
What is needed is to execute with the existing mempolicy, but from
the point of view of the destination CPU. A bit more work on the
mpol code is required, but this is good enough for basic tests.
> Another approach would be to migrate this on touch, but that is probably
> slightly more difficult. The advantage would be that on multiple
> migrations it would follow. And it would be a bit slower for
> the initial case.
Migrate what on touch? Talking mainly about kernel memory structures,
task_struct, mm, vmas, page tables, kernel stack, etc.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-01 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-01 7:33 [rfc] forked kernel task and mm structures imbalanced on NUMA Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 7:33 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 8:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 8:41 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 15:48 ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 15:48 ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 15:59 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-06-01 15:59 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 16:20 ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 16:20 ` Andi Kleen
2010-06-01 16:31 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 16:31 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-01 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 16:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 16:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100601155943.GA9453@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=Lee@firstfloor.org \
--cc=Schermerh@firstfloor.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.